43(B)log

JULY 1, 2022

2004), in which the defendant continued to run an infomercial after its agreement with the individual plaintiff, Lundin, featured in the infomercial expired. That is, the likeness must be distributed to members of the public in a way calculated to bring in money. There are no allegations of such use here.” The court cited Mktg.

Advertising 59

Advertising Advertising False Advertising Public Use 59

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

FEBRUARY 4, 2021

The parties are currently engaged in supplemental expert discovery on Hospira and Pfizer’s on-sale bar and public use defenses, and the court has resolved two discovery disputes this year stemming from these issues. In particular, Judge Reyna would have interpreted the “2004 Accord & Satisfaction between Roche. . .

Litigation 52

Litigation Settlement Marketing Marketing 52

SpicyIP

JANUARY 5, 2024

These are (i) failing to effectively realise the subject innovation; (ii) the need to alleviate unaddressed health or safety needs; (iii) failure to meet the requirements of public use of the invention; and (iv) failure of contractual obligations, especially under s.

Invention 69

Invention Government Intellectual Property IP 69